First impressions

[gunnergoz]

Thank you Nomet, I am reassured by your interest in getting feedback from posters here. I'm hanging in there to see how things go from here.

[Xerkis]

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

ORIGINAL: DBeves

ORIGINAL: tjfox1

Did a test last night. One of my squads was behind cover with a line of sight to and enemy squad, yes i could have shot at them but i didn't I "saved my action". The enemy squad moved toward me in the open and my squad did nothing, amazingly the enemy squad didn't shoot at me either. The next turn the enemy sqaud moved toward me again and again my squad did nothing. During this entire time my squad did not perform any actions other then "Save Action" and did nothing while an enemy squad moved around in their line of sight for two turns. This "game" is being removed from my hard drive.

Say it again - there is NO - reaction fire in the game. you arent not getting something ... its simply not there. The proffered excuse was that it was in the original but removed as it made the game boring. that better than making it worth playing ?

But the OP is not stating that HIS units are moving and the enemy is not firing but that the AI is advancing and not firing. He is not describing a reaction fire situation but a simple AI advance and fire situation. Now unless the LOS was in fact not present as the OP thought, then something is whacked.

What kind of outfit does the player’s squad have? If it’s a Platanenmuster or Frog-Skin then the advancing enemy won’t be able to see your squad. You’re not moving, you are in “stealth” mode. Also, if the advancing enemy is “running” they will not be able to fire at the player’s squad since they have used up their turn for that round.

[boerkameel]

Hello there,

I've registered here to comment on this thread. I've purchased the game the day it was released, without following much of it's development. It just looked interesting.
Going over the OP and responses, there are some valid points. However, I must say that I find it odd that people are complaining the game does not do what they expect it to do. Are you guys so conservative that a bit of change is so odd?


Indeed, there is no interrupt in the game. A turn is a "hard turn". Maybe you're not used to games that do it that way, but this is how the devs chose to make it. Maybe they made it in the image of board games, where a move stays yours. It requires planning - strategy, not tactics. I choose to adapt to the game, and find it a rewarding experience.
You have to use cover (lv2 or 3) and FOV optimally to see the enemy well in advance. If the enemy uses a FOV blocking approach and camouflage gear, he'll end up right next to you. How is that not realistic?
Even if an interrupt is built in, half of the ingame weapons are too heavy or cumbersome to fire accurately after moving anyway.

This makes the game a bit slower paced then others. Exactly what draws me to turn based.

Please, don't push the devs into making it into some other game you like. The gaming world is messed up enough with all large studios copying each others success formula. I've played Jagged Alliance and liked it's interrupts, and Fallout Tactics without interrupts.
Or just admit the game is too difficult for you and play something else [8D]


In Re: to the realism / historic accuracy: Ingame loading screens mention "we chose game balance over realism". Giving all calibers the same penetration and stopping power might be more realistic, it could as well break the weapon types balance.
The modding capabilities seem extensive, I guess you could alter weapon stats yourself if it's that crucial.

*sidenote*
I've played some single- and multiplayer sessions rather successively. If you need gameplay tips, just ask. Some of my pointers:
- Fielding a large squad isn't that productive, as suggested. The game is balanced for squads of 2-5 soldiers. More cost more, you may lack points to be able to field a large troop. Aim for 450-550CR squads.
- Get a high ranked commander to be able to play early in the turn.
- Specialize your squads. Eg: Sniper team of 2, recon/capture of 4 with SMG and rifles, support of 2 with MG and assault rifle. Possible additions: close quarters / mass damage squad with bazooka and flamethrower / all assault rifle squad to suppress enemy.
- Balance gear. Para gear gives more ammo capacity and limited camouflage. It also allows your men to start the game further from the drop zone, and later in the game to drop mid-field. Essential for those quick captures and reinforcements.
- Experiment with disciplines. Endurance makes your MG squad sprint further and not wheeze for air after 2 runs. Recon helps in counter-camouflage.

[gunnergoz]

ORIGINAL: boerkameel

Hello there,

I've registered here to comment on this thread. I've purchased the game the day it was released, without following much of it's development. It just looked interesting.
Going over the OP and responses, there are some valid points. However, I must say that I find it odd that people are complaining the game does not do what they expect it to do. Are you guys so conservative that a bit of change is so odd?


Indeed, there is no interrupt in the game. A turn is a "hard turn". Maybe you're not used to games that do it that way, but this is how the devs chose to make it. Maybe they made it in the image of board games, where a move stays yours. It requires planning - strategy, not tactics. I choose to adapt to the game, and find it a rewarding experience.
You have to use cover (lv2 or 3) and FOV optimally to see the enemy well in advance. If the enemy uses a FOV blocking approach and camouflage gear, he'll end up right next to you. How is that not realistic?
Even if an interrupt is built in, half of the ingame weapons are too heavy or cumbersome to fire accurately after moving anyway.

This makes the game a bit slower paced then others. Exactly what draws me to turn based.

Please, don't push the devs into making it into some other game you like. The gaming world is messed up enough with all large studios copying each others success formula. I've played Jagged Alliance and liked it's interrupts, and Fallout Tactics without interrupts.
Or just admit the game is too difficult for you and play something else [8D]


In Re: to the realism / historic accuracy: Ingame loading screens mention "we chose game balance over realism". Giving all calibers the same penetration and stopping power might be more realistic, it could as well break the weapon types balance.
The modding capabilities seem extensive, I guess you could alter weapon stats yourself if it's that crucial.

*sidenote*
I've played some single- and multiplayer sessions rather successively. If you need gameplay tips, just ask. Some of my pointers:
- Fielding a large squad isn't that productive, as suggested. The game is balanced for squads of 2-5 soldiers. More cost more, you may lack points to be able to field a large troop. Aim for 450-550CR squads.
- Get a high ranked commander to be able to play early in the turn.
- Specialize your squads. Eg: Sniper team of 2, recon/capture of 4 with SMG and rifles, support of 2 with MG and assault rifle. Possible additions: close quarters / mass damage squad with bazooka and flamethrower / all assault rifle squad to suppress enemy.
- Balance gear. Para gear gives more ammo capacity and limited camouflage. It also allows your men to start the game further from the drop zone, and later in the game to drop mid-field. Essential for those quick captures and reinforcements.
- Experiment with disciplines. Endurance makes your MG squad sprint further and not wheeze for air after 2 runs. Recon helps in counter-camouflage.

Thank you for your post. I am pretty much exclusively a TBS-oriented gamer, so the pace of the game is just fine. What I object to so far has to do mostly with the poor documentation of precisely what the game expects players to do in order to survive and to win. The lack of a passive reaction fire segment is bothersome but I suppose it could be justified by the programmers as being what they wanted and not an oversight. Since the original X-com and similar tactical TBS games, saving points for a passive reaction fire response to enemy moves has been part of many games. This one takes exception to that, which does not please many, myself included. But oh well, have to adapt or get out of Dodge, right?

As for the game's being optimized for smaller squads, that is one thing that I do take issue with. WW2 infantry squads varied from 8 to 12 men. I suppose you can call a 4 man fire team a squad and let it go at that, but the game then goes and assigns leaders up to the rank of "major" for these teams, which is totally unrealistic. That sort of patent lack of realism is what sticks in my craw perhaps most of all. It rather spoils the suspension of disbelief that I like to enjoy while playing. I'd rather they had another way to add initiative to certain squad members other than rank - unless, of course, they get the rank system correct. A proper 4 man team might be led by a corporal, not a lieutenant or captain and certainly not a major.

These are perhaps piddling complaints of an old military history buff who happens to enjoy these computer games. But if a game is in part sold on the basis of its historical accuracy, then it is only fair to take the developers to task when they fail to deliver on that part of the game.

Like I said earlier, I'm being patient and seeing what develops in this game and its patches, DLC and follow on releases.

[nomet]

our main thing with the force builder was that you where sepouse to be able to build it the way you wanted. if you want I can have a look at making it possible for 12 soldiers in a squad. the thing with ranks was something we where aware of (ex-army after all) but we said that if you wanted to build a specil forces squad. A paratrooper squad that was sepouse to go on some special mission you could. so to us its more giving the player the ability to make what thay want that is important. someone might want to make something exlusive for gameplay others striving for realism.

[Xerkis]

@ gunnergoz
If it’s the rank system that is troubling you – I’m wondering if it is simply the titles.
If instead of Officer ranks, if TA kept within the Enlisted ranks? Replacing maybe “Captain” with perhaps “Sergeant First Class” – or something along those lines? So it sounds like to me your issue with this is really simply in the “title” of the ranks – not with the rank system itself.

And your other point – size of the “squads”. Here you say that maybe they are more like “fire teams”. Again, it sounds to me like your issue is with the “title” of the groups of men, not with the groups of men themselves.

And this makes a big difference in how Zeal needs to react. If what your issue with the game are about game mechanics or simply about semantics within the game. If it’s game mechanics, it could take tons of programming hours to fix – if that’s needed then so be it. But semantics could be as simple as a search and replace the word squad with fire team.

I hope you see what I’m trying to get at here.
[:)]

[mbar]

I can see now that the Force Builder is an integral part of playing the game. Understanding the squads and what adjusts their stats. The forces you build can reflect your own strategies and how you like to play the game.

[Xerkis]

ORIGINAL: mbar

I can see now that the Force Builder is an integral part of playing the game. Understanding the squads and what adjusts their stats. The forces you build can reflect your own strategies and how you like to play the game.

Very much the key. In fact you can spend just as much time in the Force Builder as you can playing the game.
And why I made all those charts – I think it helps with this part of the game. . . . . and this is a big part of the game.
[;)]

[boerkameel]

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz

Thank you for your post. I am pretty much exclusively a TBS-oriented gamer, so the pace of the game is just fine. What I object to so far has to do mostly with the poor documentation of precisely what the game expects players to do in order to survive and to win. The lack of a passive reaction fire segment is bothersome but I suppose it could be justified by the programmers as being what they wanted and not an oversight. Since the original X-com and similar tactical TBS games, saving points for a passive reaction fire response to enemy moves has been part of many games. This one takes exception to that, which does not please many, myself included. But oh well, have to adapt or get out of Dodge, right?

No problem. I find this game good, but not yet excellent. It could evolve into that by having the right audience that supports it with constructive feedback, and I think it needs people like you: with the proper background to weigh it against it's competitors and history.
I have, as many others, been spoiled (bored?) lately with games "holding your hand". Even before you place your first ingame click, some voice shouts "LEFT CLICK THE BATTLEFIELD TO ISSUE A MOVE ORDER". I found it refreshing to be able to experiment with how I want to play it from scratch.
However, I have suggested they include explanations to the cover system, camouflage and advanced tactics in their training videos. They will also be creating a manual.

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz
As for the game's being optimized for smaller squads, that is one thing that I do take issue with. WW2 infantry squads varied from 8 to 12 men. I suppose you can call a 4 man fire team a squad and let it go at that, but the game then goes and assigns leaders up to the rank of "major" for these teams, which is totally unrealistic. That sort of patent lack of realism is what sticks in my craw perhaps most of all. It rather spoils the suspension of disbelief that I like to enjoy while playing. I'd rather they had another way to add initiative to certain squad members other than rank - unless, of course, they get the rank system correct. A proper 4 man team might be led by a corporal, not a lieutenant or captain and certainly not a major.

These are perhaps piddling complaints of an old military history buff who happens to enjoy these computer games. But if a game is in part sold on the basis of its historical accuracy, then it is only fair to take the developers to task when they fail to deliver on that part of the game.

I'm not that up to date with military ranks. Sounds like something they can easily change, if this is something that bothers the players / prevents people from playing.
On another note: they want to emulate a board game. I've played Stratego, it also fields various ranks without squads. Their goal might be to use ranks that can be recognized by an average, not ww2-savvy wargamer. I can relate, I wouldn't know the difference between all the sub-ranks. It's hard to cater to the different needs of each gamer.

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz
Like I said earlier, I'm being patient and seeing what develops in this game and its patches, DLC and follow on releases.

I just hope some do choose to play and support the game. Otherwise the developers won't have much incentive (and cash) to continue improving/expanding it.

[boerkameel]

I hope Zeal chooses to place Xerkis' overviews on their website.
That, combined with a tool to upload/configure squads on the site, should allow us to compare squads and talk about their effectiveness on specific maps, and in specific roles.

[Xerkis]

ORIGINAL: boerkameel

I hope Zeal chooses to place Xerkis' overviews on their website.
That, combined with a tool to upload/configure squads on the site, should allow us to compare squads and talk about their effectiveness on specific maps, and in specific roles.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
[:)]

And you can already upload your forces.
Go to the folder ….. My Games\Team Assault\Teams\ and just copy the “.tat” file of the force you want to share.
Anyone needs to drop that in their same folder and there you go. They can look at it in their Force Builder or use it in their game.